[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <m1k4tzwx8z.fsf@fess.ebiederm.org>
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2010 12:35:56 -0800
From: ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...e.fr>
Cc: hadi@...erus.ca, Linux Netdev List <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
Netfilter Development Mailinglist
<netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org>,
Ben Greear <greearb@...delatech.com>,
Daniel Lezcano <dlezcano@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] ns: Syscalls for better namespace sharing control.
> No, the plan is only one namespace at a time.
Looking at this a bit more I am frustrated and relieved.
I was looking at what it would take to join an arbitrary mount
namespace and I realized it is completely non-obvious what fs->root
and fs->pwd should be set to.
If I leave them untouched the new mount namespace is useless,
as all path lookups will give results in a different mount namespace,
so not even mount or umount can be used.
I can not change fs->root to mnt_ns->root as that is rootfs and there
is always something mounted on top so I can not use that.
In comparison an unshare of the mount namespace doesn't have to move
fs->root or fs->pwd at all and only has to update their mounts to
the corresponding mounts in the new mount namespace.
I might be able to find the topmost root filesystem and put at least
root there, but I'm not particularly fond of that option.
Eric
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists